Courts Update Himachal Pradesh HC dismisses govt employee’s petition against transfer

Himachal Pradesh HC dismisses govt employee’s petition against transfer

-

Simla, Apr 1 (ILNS) The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Wednesday dismissed the petition of a government employee who had challenged his transfer, saying that transfer is an incidence of service and government employees are supposed to be transferred and posted anywhere in the state.

The petitioner, Praveen Kumar, a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (Arts), has been transferred through transfer/office order, dated February 18, 2021, from GSSS Nabahi, Mandi to GSSS Barang, Mandi. The private respondent No.4 who is also a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (Arts) replaced the petitioner. The Petitioner has approached the High Court, alleging that respondent No. 4 managed a Demi Official (DO) note in his favour, whereupon he was transferred and as sequel the petitioner was disturbed.

Manik Sethi, counsel for the petitioner, argued that transfer of respondent No. 4, in place of the petitioner, was effected only at the instance of local MLA, that too after condoning his short stay at his last station of posting, so the transfer is neither in public interest nor in the exigency of service. He has further argued that amidst academic session the petitioner has been transferred, so there is a clear violation of Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013 of Transfer Policy. Lastly, the counsel argued that the mother of the petitioner is a cardiac patient and the petitioner is the only one who looks after her.

Ashok Sharma, Additional Advocate General, contended that the petitioner has completed his normal tenure at GSSS, Nabahi, Mandi, as, since, October 4, 2017, he was posted there and the transfer order was only made on February 18, 2021, with prior approval of the competent authority. He has further argued that all the government employees are liable to be posted anywhere in the State considering the service exigency and necessity.

Vishwa Bhushan, counsel for respondent No.4, stated that since the petitioner has completed his normal tenure at the present place of posting, thus the above transfer order does not suffer from any illegality and is well within the mandate of transfer policy.

A division bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia while considering the records held that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 have political patronage.

“The unmindful practice of effecting transfers based on D.O. notes, in legal paradigm, is just administrative doldrums, due to political interference, but political interference, made by a public representative, is a mere recommendation. The recommendation made by a public representative needs to pass the stage of application of mind by the transferring authority and in this stage of application of mind by the transferring authority, it has to be seen whether the transfer is being effected on administrative exigency and public interest, if any,” the court observed.

The bench noted that the petitioner cannot challenge the legality of D.O. Note, whereupon transfer of respondent No. 4 has been effected, as the petitioner himself was transferred to GSSS Nabahi, Mandi, on the basis of D.O. Note. Now, when petitioner has been replaced by respondent No. 4, on the basis of D.O. Note, the petitioner has taken a slew and laid challenge to such transfer mainly on the ground that transfer on D.O. Note is illegal. Thus, the petitioner is both beneficiary and victim of what he has pleaded in the instant petition.

“The petitioner has completed his normal tenure at GSSS Nabahi, Mandi, earlier he managed his transfer for the said post, through a D.O. note only and now he has laid challenge to the transfer of respondent No. 4, on the ground that transfer cannot be effected on the basis of D.O. Note, especially when he is beneficiary through such procedure. The Judge said, ” We feel that the petitioner is standing on a slippery pedestal with crutches of D.O. note and chopping his own crutches,” the court said.

The court remarked that the petitioner, who himself is a beneficiary of D.O. note, now cannot portray himself to be victim of the same. In fact, the petitioner has no right to challenge his transfer, the court said. ILNS/SNG

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest news

SC pulls up UPSC, Jharkhand PSC for violating DGP appointment rules

The Supreme Court has directed the Union Public Service Commission and the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to...

SC reverses Tribunal Reforms Ordinance on age limit of lawyers as Tribunal members

New Delhi, Jul 15 (ILNS) The Supreme Court has reversed the provisions made to the Finance Act,...

SC issues notice on plea challenging Section 124A of Indian Penal Code

New Delhi, Jul 15 (ILNS) The Supreme Court today issued notice on a petition challenging the constitutional...

Rotary and Tata Trusts to collaborate in Cancer care, Covid care, Nutrition, Rural Uplift Livelihoods, to supplement efforts towards strengthening the nation

New Delhi, July 14 (ILNS) The Tata Trusts and Rotary today announced a five-year collaboration to scale...

Bar Council of Delhi distributed more than Rs 19 crore to lawyers during lockdown: BCD Chairman Ramesh Gupta

New Delhi, Jul 14 (ILNS) The Bar Council of Delhi is reaching out to the lawyers, who...

NGT flays Haryana over sewage overflow on National Highway-19

New Delhi, Jul 14 (ILNS) The National Green Tribunal has pulled up the state of Haryana over...

Must read

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you